Kodak and the Digital Revolution GMAN 509 Strategic Management of Technological Innovation Summary In 1976 Kodak controlled 90% of the film market and 85% of camera sales in the United States. By 1992 the share of film market decreased by 5%. In 1991 they launched the first professional digital camera. In 1998 they spent $1.2 billion to two joint ventures with the Chinese government and by 1999 became number two in digital cameras in the United States with a 27% market share. In 2001 it launched
Premium Innovation Digital photography Marketing
In year 1994‚ KODAK had important strategic decisions to make in order to ensure that a bright future is waiting for KODAK. At that time‚ although Kodak was dominating the consumer photographic film market‚ it had been facing a 6% decline in market share over a five year period. The reasons for KODAK’s market share loss could be examined in two major parts; supply effect and demand effect. SUPPLY EFFECT DEMAND EFFECT -Attractive
Premium Brand Strategic management Marketing
Q2: How would you evaluate Kodak’s attempts to enter the digital business to date? Kodak was aware of the opportunities in the digital market as early as 1980s and allocated resources into the digital business‚ but the inconsistency of leadership strategies and resistance at the management level made it difficult to embrace opportunities in the digital market and stood out amid rigorous competitions. Kodak spent massive amount of research into exploring digital technologies since 1983‚ after Sony
Premium Management Marketing
Kodak’s current position in digital imaging is focused on three areas: 1. Image capture (digital cameras) – cameras are still not boosting profits‚ but Kodak has secured 15% of the market‚ and have boosted advertising spending towards s more integrated marketing effort 2. Services (online photo manipulation) - spent significant dollars on R&D developing software 3. Image output (digital kiosks‚ inkjet printers‚ paper and inks) – network of 19‚000 kiosks at retail stores are highly profitable
Premium Digital photography Camera Digital single-lens reflex camera
CASE STUDY REPORT 1 Case Study On Kodak‚ What Went Wrong? Patricia A. Webster Oklahoma Wesleyan University CASE STUDY REPORT 2 Introduction This case study will analyze what areas of failure caused Eastman Kodak to continue to have continued underperformance and misalignment within the company’s operations. There were four serious counts of corporate failure on the park of Kodak’s strategic planning and decision making. The analysis
Premium Strategic management
KODAK PEST Political US copyright law requires all photo shops to refrain from printing or releasing digital images taken by professional photographers without a copyright release (2005; 2005). The company operates in different countries around the world therefore it needs to comply with those countries regulations for example‚ taxation policy and employment laws. The company has to take into account the stability of the government in countries where it operates to try and minimize political
Premium Digital camera Digital photography Image sensor
films (Grayson‚ “How Color Changed the Movies). Following the timeline of the development of color in film‚ after the Lumière brothers in 1903‚ Kodak‚ an emerging photography company‚ introduces kodacolor in 1928. Again‚ in 1932‚ the Lumière brothers come up with an improvement of the autochrome process called
Premium Color Photography Light
Appeals When an offender and it’s representing counsel feels that the judge made a substantial mistake in their case then the defendant through his representing counsel has the option to appeal the decision. Both sides of the case has the opportunity to appeal (in a civil case) if both feel that the decision made by the judge was a mistake or in most cases the loosing side and in criminal cases only the defendant may appeal the verdict ("The Appeals Process"‚ 2012). An appeal is a formal request
Premium Appeal Court Appellate court
Quo vadis? Towards an effective predatory pricing provision Garth Campbell* The level of criticism directed at s 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) for its inability to capture predatory pricing indicates that smaller businesses are extremely concerned about this practice. Such criticism reached its peak following the High Court’s decision in Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC (2003) 215 CLR 374‚ which rejected a claim of predatory pricing. Since then‚ the Birdsville Amendment and other recent
Premium Competition law Sherman Antitrust Act Supreme Court of the United States
Elektra Electronics Company is a business division of a mid-sized company focused on manufacturing and selling a high quality consumer electronic device through high-end marketing channels such as specialty shops and exclusive department stores. These specialty outlets advise and educate customers about the desirable features of different electronic devices. Elektra charges on average 500 per unit to its distributors‚ who mark it up to 899 when selling to retail customers. After many years of high
Premium Marketing Retailing Cost